Hawco v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hawco v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal

281 A.D.2d 294, 722 N.Y.S.2d 150, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3020

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 22, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 294 (Hawco v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hawco v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 281 A.D.2d 294, 722 N.Y.S.2d 150, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3020 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), entered October 26, 1999, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent’s dismissal of petitioner’s rent overcharge complaint as time-barred, dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s dismissal of petitioner’s challenge to the service of the initial 1984 rent registration was rational. Petitioner’s overcharge complaint, filed in 1989 and still pending at the time of the enactment of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 ([RRRA 1997] L 1997, ch 116), was, pursuant to that enactment, subject to a four-year limitations period (Matter of Muller v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 263 AD2d 296, 303), which period plainly did not encompass the complained of rent registration. Pursuant to its express terms, RRRA 1997 was effective immediately and applicable to all pending cases (id.). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), entered October 26, 1999, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent’s dismissal of petitioner’s rent overcharge complaint as time-barred, dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s dismissal of petitioner’s challenge to the service of the initial 1984 rent registration was rational. Petitioner’s overcharge complaint, filed in 1989 and still pending at the time of the enactment of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 ([RRRA 1997] L 1997, ch 116), was, pursuant to that enactment, subject to a four-year limitations period (Matter of Muller v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 263 AD2d 296, 303), which period plainly did not encompass the complained of rent registration. Pursuant to its express terms, RRRA 1997 was effective immediately and applicable to all pending cases (id.). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 294, 722 N.Y.S.2d 150, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawco-v-state-of-new-york-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack